i just saw it and i think it's easily his best film (my favourites being pulp, kill bill and then a gap w death proof third). i definitely agree w what someone upthread said about tarantino films just being fun as hell to watch, and this felt so focused and so funny and brutal and tense and emotional (when django kills the australians and frees the slaves and the slave is teary-eyed and we see how much django has learned from dr king , which is obviously the most appropriate name).

i saw it at a matinee, but it was full of audience moments where people would wanna clap or laugh or be scared as shit for django's balls. i think it's like the best parts of every tarantino film distilled into the quickest almost-three-hours i've ever spent watching something.

prolly my favourite film of all time right now. i immediately wanted to see it again when it finished. i'm mad now whenever i meet someone who saw the screener or doesn't feel strongly about it. also i thought jamie foxx was the standout and underplayed his part perfectly, but yeah i was crushed when schultz died.

Why was it average? It was the same damn premise as IB, just with African slaves replacing Jews. Gory revenge against the oppressors! Both were longer than they should have been, both filled with more gore than a straight-to-video Miike release, both had forced 'clever quips'.

It wasn't a horrible movie. However, if it wasn't QT's name behind it, there is no way in hell it would have been received so positively. Compare IB or DU to his other works like Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. None of those movies were original in regard to plot or genre, however, in execution they were brilliant whereas both Basterds and Unchained were bland and relied on the 'touchy' subject matter and blood.

QT's best work? Haha. Definitely a case of 'the last movie I saw is my favourite movie!'

The movie is too long; so many pointless scenes that were just placed into the film to look cool. The plot for revenge ends within the first act and Django's vendetta seem's lost and out lived. Though they try to develop Django's character he hardly speaks and there are hardly any insight into his personality and emotions. His character is a push over not a badass, he always follows Dr.waltz's idea's. Jamie Fox also was a bad choice for the role. He can not show emotion or when he does it just looks like his acting.

The movie is too long; so many pointless scenes that were just placed into the film to look cool. The plot for revenge ends within the first act and Django's vendetta seem's lost and out lived. Though they try to develop Django's character he hardly speaks and there are hardly any insight into his personality and emotions. His character is a push over not a badass, he always follows Dr.waltz's idea's. Jamie Fox also was a bad choice for the role. He can not show emotion or when he does it just looks like his acting.

Django summed up in one word; Nigger.

You realize Django was a slave right? of course he's not going to be a straight badass immediately. I won't give you the run down of slave life, because hell I don't even know, but I can guarantee if you've been called derogatory terms, worked for nothing and whipped your entire life, you wouldn't be a complete badass the second you become a free person either.

The movie is too long; so many pointless scenes that were just placed into the film to look cool. The plot for revenge ends within the first act and Django's vendetta seem's lost and out lived. Though they try to develop Django's character he hardly speaks and there are hardly any insight into his personality and emotions. His character is a push over not a badass, he always follows Dr.waltz's idea's. Jamie Fox also was a bad choice for the role. He can not show emotion or when he does it just looks like his acting.

Django summed up in one word; Nigger.

You realize Django was a slave right? of course he's not going to be a straight badass immediately. I won't give you the run down of slave life, because hell I don't even know, but I can guarantee if you've been called derogatory terms, worked for nothing and whipped your entire life, you wouldn't be a complete badass the second you become a free person either.

Sorry maybe I was too vague in my review (didn't want to spoil anything by referencing scenes)Firstly the trailer's and the title of the film set the premise to viewers that the main focus of the movie is about Django and his vendetta. It's shown as if Django is a badass who will stop at nothing. Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, Django has killed a man. He throws of his garment to show his body; this is to show his masculine body and then shoots a guy in cold blood. The movie should be called Dr.waltz unchained. Django is merely a sidekick or a student. Though this is Django's story, it never feels he really cares and if Dr.waltz hadn't turned up he would have just lived on as a slave. Django is merely a sheep or should it be slave to Dr.waltz idea's even if they are stupid one's to drag out the length of the film. On the matter of slavery, we are treated with an array of characters which correctly portray black american slaves at the time. However if we look into Django and how slavery effected him we are greeted with sterotypical racism. Django also ends up hurting and abusing other slaves for his cause; if he had spoken up and not been a sheep to Dr.waltz's idea they could have come up with a better idea like I don't know just asking to buy his wife from the start. Jamie foxx tried to play the character too cool, he never looks or feels like he went through a hardship. Props and make up at the most of the time show wounds and punishment. He has hardly any speaking in the movie, which maybe due to the bad writing but any words spoken sound flat and emotionless.

The script as a whole feels as though it started of being written like kill bill. There is a german fable in the film which says about killing a dragon, storming the castle and then walking through fire. They reference this fable to show how Django's live is like this fable and is the stated reason why Dr.waltz helps Django. However what actually happens is nothing like the fable. The dragon would be Candy, but Django has no direct tiff with him and his anger towards him is either speculation or scene's after he arrives in candy land.

i didn't think the movie lived up to the hype either, but some of your criticism is just fucking weird. "Though this is Django's story, it never feels he really cares and if Dr.waltz hadn't turned up he would have just lived on as a slave." WTF?

You realize Django was a slave right? of course he's not going to be a straight badass immediately. I won't give you the run down of slave life, because hell I don't even know, but I can guarantee if you've been called derogatory terms, worked for nothing and whipped your entire life, you wouldn't be a complete badass the second you become a free person either.

Sorry maybe I was too vague in my review (didn't want to spoil anything by referencing scenes)Firstly the trailer's and the title of the film set the premise to viewers that the main focus of the movie is about Django and his vendetta. It's shown as if Django is a badass who will stop at nothing. Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, Django has killed a man. He throws of his garment to show his body; this is to show his masculine body and then shoots a guy in cold blood. The movie should be called Dr.waltz unchained. Django is merely a sidekick or a student. Though this is Django's story, it never feels he really cares and if Dr.waltz hadn't turned up he would have just lived on as a slave. Django is merely a sheep or should it be slave to Dr.waltz idea's even if they are stupid one's to drag out the length of the film. On the matter of slavery, we are treated with an array of characters which correctly portray black american slaves at the time. However if we look into Django and how slavery effected him we are greeted with sterotypical racism. Django also ends up hurting and abusing other slaves for his cause; if he had spoken up and not been a sheep to Dr.waltz's idea they could have come up with a better idea like I don't know just asking to buy his wife from the start. Jamie foxx tried to play the character too cool, he never looks or feels like he went through a hardship. Props and make up at the most of the time show wounds and punishment. He has hardly any speaking in the movie, which maybe due to the bad writing but any words spoken sound flat and emotionless.

The script as a whole feels as though it started of being written like kill bill. There is a german fable in the film which says about killing a dragon, storming the castle and then walking through fire. They reference this fable to show how Django's live is like this fable and is the stated reason why Dr.waltz helps Django. However what actually happens is nothing like the fable. The dragon would be Candy, but Django has no direct tiff with him and his anger towards him is either speculation or scene's after he arrives in candy land.

Cba to write anymore, basically the writing is bad. fuck thats long

damn dawg either you watched the wrong movie or have 0 knowledge on american history pre-civil war. your entire review is bitter as fuck and you are creating holes and problems just to be controversial.

i fucked with this movie extra tough and it became an instafavorite in my eyes, all the complaints im seeing are common complaints about all QT movies so its really a matter of preference when it comes to that shit.

and on the whole who gave tarantino a nigga pass/black card. it was the rza, once you get the motherfucking rza cosign you can do w/e the fuck you want.

There you have it folks, joining the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jesse Jackson as the voice of black people EVERYWHERE is... The RZA!

Did RZA give him that pass back before he wrote Pulp Fiction? If you remember QT's cameo in that, you'll remember how he stated many a time that his home was not 'dead nigger storage' when a dead Phil LaMar was brought by his home.

I understand the need for the excessive use of the word in this film, look at the period of the film, it's to be expected. However, to imply that any one person can give a 'pass' and speak for an entire race is ridiculous.

i disagree, took my gf and met up with 6 others to watch this and all of us said it was the best movie we had seen in awhile. Hell, everyone clapped when it ended and the last time i was in a theater that did that was for avatar

There you have it folks, joining the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jesse Jackson as the voice of black people EVERYWHERE is... The RZA!

Did RZA give him that pass back before he wrote Pulp Fiction? If you remember QT's cameo in that, you'll remember how he stated many a time that his home was not 'dead nigger storage' when a dead Phil LaMar was brought by his home.

I understand the need for the excessive use of the word in this film, look at the period of the film, it's to be expected. However, to imply that any one person can give a 'pass' and speak for an entire race is ridiculous.

he had mothafuckin kojack and samuel l. jackson give him the fucking cosign for pulp fiction, and the rza is as influential as fuckin jesse and throwing in the farrakhan is just ridiculous as fuck.

how come there wasn't an antisemitic riot after inglorious basterds? ppl are being so damn sensitive.

i wonder what obama thinks about the racism in this movie.

because the effects of slavery in america are still felt today so people are touchy i guess. also slavery was way worse and unlike basterds doesn't end when you kill three people.

i feel like white people are more vocally uncomfortable about it than black people, but i have heard of black people feeling weird when white people laugh at certain parts.

it's all dumb tho this is a western fairytale that just happens to be set in a certain period it aint ABOUT race primarily. also did anyone else think the tale of siegfried and brunhilde sounded like shrek?

African Slavery was worse than the Holocaust? Nah b. This isn't to start a pissing contest between Africans and Semitic Peoples, because both have seen slavery(see: Jews in Egypt) and genocide(see: Congo under Leopold II), but Genocide will ALWAYS trump slavery.

The Holocaust had its forced labour camps, and the Congolese were enslaved before they were slaughtered en masse too.

We could also go into the purpose of both slavery and genocide. One is free labour. One is the complete eradication of a race or peoples from the face of the Earth.

Tongue-in-cheek lols @ "when genocide is over". C'mon son, you can't be this stupid. When genocide is over, 1000s upon 1000s have been mercilessly slaughtered. You state that the perpetrators are tried upon the cessation of the genocide, which has been true for the most part up until this point. However, this would not be the case if the genocide was 'successful'. If 'successful', genocide would be total and absolute ethnic cleansing, and if the perpetrators of the genocide were the victors, there would be no war crimes tribunals held.

African Slavery was worse than the Holocaust? Nah b. This isn't to start a pissing contest between Africans and Semitic Peoples, because both have seen slavery(see: Jews in Egypt) and genocide(see: Congo under Leopold II), but Genocide will ALWAYS trump slavery.

I think both are bad in two different ways. When you look at slavery, you have an after effect that is people being in a foreign land against their will and discriminated against almost forever (Blacks in America)

Genocide though leads to mass death and ofcourse the loss of life is incredibly bad. Both are bad and you can say death is worse than anything but the being discriminated against continuously is also a bad thing.

It's weird when you look at it, enslave some people, take them where they don't want to be, release them against your own will maybe and then hate them, for what?

Both are bad though and as you said there's no point trying to compare such horrific things, at the end of the day what is there to gain from that.

And Farrakhan was used because the media often portrays both him and Rev J. Jackson as the definitive voice for 'all' black people. The statement was tongue-in-cheek.

malcolm and martin are the definitive voice of african americans, writers don't need a cosign but qt has always bounced ideas off of friends/actors who heavily influence his voice. he had rza read and critique the early drafts of django when they were fuckin around with mwtif.

I think this is my favorite QT film, although I've never seen Jackie Brown. And I'd like this movie, and place it in my top 5 of 2012 no matter who made it. Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, and Leo all did amazing jobs in their roles. Sam Jackson was hilarious too.